Victims Strategy

Debate between Sarah Champion and Bob Stewart

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I know that a number of businesses are now training staff and colleagues to recognise the signs of domestic abuse and to support the victim by signposting the issue to the right agency.

I am now going to turn to my pet project. It involves a Government agency that is wilfully traumatising victims and operating a subjective system that often runs in the face of the law. Accompanying the announcement of the new victims strategy, it is most welcome that the Minister has announced a broad review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and of the agency that administers it, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—CICA. The scheme exists to provide compensation to victims of crime. Money can of course never heal the wounds, physical or mental, suffered by the victims of crime, but victims should at least be able to expect to receive the compensation to which they are entitled without those mental wounds being reopened by the administration body set up to support them. In short, CICA needs a radical overhaul to make it a victim-centred agency.

Victims’ needs, their rights and their wellbeing should be at the core of everything CICA does, but the reality is very different. My constituents’ experiences of CICA have been that it exists not to support them, to honestly assess their claims or to award redress for their suffering, but rather to pursue every possible option to deny their claims. This can include questioning their injury, questioning the rulings of courts, or more appallingly, accusing them of complicity in their abuse. At every turn, CICA ignores the needs of victims in order to maintain its balance sheet. The Minister’s review of the scheme cannot come soon enough for victims. Having supported a number of constituents through the process of making a claim, and through my extensive work with victims charities and organisations, it is abundantly clear to me that what is needed is a complete change in the culture of CICA and in how it treats the victims of crime. To be blunt, CICA’s attitude to victims stinks.

I first became aware of the failings of CICA as I was supporting victims and survivors of the appalling child sexual exploitation that took place in Rotherham. As the victims came forward and the investigations and prosecutions progressed, a number of my constituents pursued compensation through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Those young women had been through the most horrendous abuse. Their childhoods were stolen from them by criminal gangs who groomed them, trafficked them and repeatedly raped them. For many, the psychological damage they suffered as children continues to haunt them years later, yet many of their claims for compensation were denied by CICA. Problematically, the rules of the scheme state that victims and survivors who have convictions, even for completely unrelated issues, must have their compensation awards reduced or withheld. This rule is particularly pertinent in cases of child sexual exploitation.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on her. She is a friend. In her experience, how long after the crime does it take for someone to get compensation, on average?

[Sarah Champion]

I would love to be able to give an answer to my hon. Friend, but the problem with CICA is that it does not publish—or, indeed, seem to work to—an agreed timetable. So the answer is that it is as long as a piece of string for some victims, and interminably long for others.

I want to return to what happens between CICA and children who have suffered sexual exploitation and abuse. As a result of their abuse, they are very likely to carry out some form of crime. Manipulating children to commit offences is a widely documented part of grooming and coercive control. I find it outrageous that what effectively amounts to a symptom of abuse—carrying out a crime—should be held against victims in order to deny them compensation. More outrageous still is the denial of such claims by CICA on the ground that a victim somehow consented to their abuse.

The scheme compensates only those survivors who did not “in fact” consent to a crime. CICA has chosen to interpret this to mean that even the very youngest of children who have been the victims of sexual abuse can be denied compensation if there is any evidence that they complied with their abuser. Minister, maybe they complied because they were terrified of what would happen if they did not, or because they were so controlled and mentally manipulated that not to comply would never have been a consideration. The law is abundantly clear when it comes to consent: where a person is under the age of 16, sexual activity is automatically criminal unless the victim is older than 13 and the defendant reasonably believes that he or she is over 16. That CICA should effectively ignore this and, through a process that is wholly opaque, find that a child provided consent is shocking. In response to concerns raised by me and others, new guidelines on consent have been issued to CICA, but flaws in the scheme itself remain, as does CICA’s attitude towards victims.

I want to pay tribute to a Rotherham survivor of CSE, Sammy Woodhouse, who has used her experience of CICA to campaign on this issue. I will read a section of the letter she received from CICA about her compensation claim:

“I am not satisfied that your consent was falsely given as a result of being groomed by the offender. The evidence does not indicate that you were manipulated or progressively lured into a false relationship.”

Based on that, Sammy’s application was rejected. Imagine the impact that receiving that letter had on her. In her opinion, the state was saying that she was complicit in her own abuse. I am glad to say that Sammy had the strength to appeal and had the decision overturned, but many other victims do not have that strength. For the record, Sammy’s abuser is currently serving 35 years. The judge believed Sammy; CICA did not. A freedom of information request showed that 700 child victims of sexual abuse were similarly refused payments in the past five years. Will the Minister please review those cases to check whether similar injustices have happened?

CICA’s apparent determination to deny claims at all costs is exemplified by the experience of another of my constituents—not a survivor of abuse, but a former police officer injured in the line of duty. My constituent suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. They first made a claim in 2013, and it was finally settled earlier this year following numerous court rulings in the applicant’s favour and only after two interventions from me.

Throughout the claim, CICA presented various arguments as to why it should not be accepted, culminating in a court ruling that settled all outstanding disputes in my constituent’s favour and directed CICA to conclude the case. Yet CICA’s response was to question whether my constituent even suffered from PTSD, something for which extensive medical evidence was provided and had even previously been ruled upon by a court. Having been asked to again prove that they suffered from the condition, my constituent understandably determined that CICA would simply present argument after argument, each of which they would be forced to counter, only to start the whole process again. My constituent concluded, not unreasonably, that CICA sought to draw out the process in the hope that they would simply give up. That kind of seemingly endless process, with no clear timescales nor explanation of what is happening with a claim, is as unprofessional as it is unfair. Yet that seems to be standard practice for CICA.

Of course, it is important that CICA assesses the eligibility of claims under the scheme and that claims are subjected to appropriate checks, but if CICA fails to support victims of crime, fails to include them in the process, fails to explain that process to them and fails to make decisions in a reasonable timeframe, it is not helping victims; it is harming them. The scheme itself often fails to make any accommodation for circumstance, something which CICA proceeds to exacerbate by failing, or being unable, to take account of context in its decision making. By way of example, paragraph 23 of the scheme states:

“An award will be withheld unless the applicant has cooperated as far as reasonably practicable in bringing the assailant to justice.”

The paragraph’s intent is clear, but the real world is rarely so straightforward.

I am aware of several cases in which individuals providing care to vulnerable adults with challenging behaviour have been assaulted in the course of their work. Many such victims understandably choose not to pursue criminal charges against their assailant—although some do. As a consequence, the victims are ineligible for compensation under the scheme and CICA denies their claims. Yet these crimes are no less severe and the harm they suffer is no less acute. The scheme must, so far as is practical, allow for such context to be taken into account. I am delighted that the Minister has already committed to abolish the so-called same-roof rule. That much-needed change overturns a profound injustice that has lingered for far too long. However, I ask the Minister not to take his foot off the pedal. Survivors are already coming to me with concerns about the timescale.

Fundamentally, if the Government are serious about reform, they cannot allow the criminal injuries compensation scheme and CICA to continue as they are. Revised guidelines on consent are a welcome step, but CICA can only interpret the scheme, which is fundamentally flawed when it comes to child abuse. In particular, the scheme fails to acknowledge grooming as a crime of violence. That arguably excludes victims of CSE if their abuse does not include sexual contact. Consequently, serious crimes, such as exploiting children to perform sexual acts online, are not compensated, even for extremely young children. On unspent convictions, a recent High Court ruling found that three women forced into prostitution as teenagers will no longer have to disclose related convictions to potential employers. It is high time that the criminal injuries compensation scheme took a similar sensible approach to the award of compensation to victims of crime who have unrelated criminal convictions

The review must carefully assess how CICA currently operates in order to deliver a victim-focused agency. Small changes, such as the provision of concrete timeframes to claimants and clear explanations of the claims process, would go a long way to improving the journey for victims of crime. It is also important to promote the scheme, because most of the claimants with whom I have dealt discovered the scheme by accident, rather than through a formal process of victim support. Most important, however, is a change of attitude. It must be made clear to CICA that its job is to administer the scheme fairly and transparently. It should be made clear that it is not CICA’s role to deploy every possible delaying tactic and every conceivable legal argument to seek to deny victims of crime the compensation to which they should be entitled. The victims strategy and the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme present a timely opportunity to deliver fundamental cultural change to how we treat victims of crime. I hope that the Government will reflect on the concerns raised in this debate and ensure that this opportunity is not squandered.

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Debate between Sarah Champion and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate the business and implementation case for the Prüm decisions. I appreciate the fact that it has been a wide-ranging debate. I support the conclusion in favour of rejoining. I welcome the Government’s change of heart relating to these decisions, even if that has taken them over a year. I am glad they are now listening to the evidence, rather than just to their Back Benchers’ fears about the EU, and recognise that these measures improve policing capability both in the UK and across the EU.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who referred to the fact that our freedoms, civil liberties and laws are built on the foundations of security and safety for all our citizens. Prüm seeks to enhance that. The recent attacks in Paris demonstrated the importance of working closely with other member states to ensure that our police forces have the best possible means at their disposal for combating crime and ensuring the protection of our citizens.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Interpol has a motto, “Connecting police for a safer world”. It could do this very well not only in Europe but across the world if it got its act together.

[Sarah Champion]

Personally, I think we should use all the measures and all the tools at our disposal. Particularly in my field, abuse, I see that criminals are working internationally now and we must do all we can to prevent that.

I am aware that opting in to Prüm may seem like a technical matter, but it speaks to a deeper issue—that we can and do achieve more by co-operation with our European partners than we can individually. Labour firmly believes that by working with our European partners on such matters, we are more than the sum of our parts. As we have heard, these decisions establish requirements for sharing data related to DNA profiles, vehicle registrations and fingerprint images. The Labour Government were right to support these as vital means of improving policing across the EU. However, in an attempt to appease their Eurosceptic Back Benchers, this Government opted out of them in 2013, with effect from 1 December 2014.

Although the Government opted back in to 35 EU justice measures, the Prüm decisions were not among them. Labour was opposed to that decision at the time, so we are pleased that the Government have come to their senses and now see the benefit of these measures. Before I come on to why we support rejoining Prüm and set out some outstanding questions that I have for the Minister, it is important that we set the original opt-out in context. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded the House that in justifying the decision not to rejoin Prüm in July last year, the Home Secretary stated that the Government had

“neither the time nor the money”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]

I am pleased that they now have the time and the money to devote to this important issue. However, it is hard to shake the suspicion that apart from time and money, last year they lacked the inclination because of the need to appease their Back Benchers. We all remember the pressure the Government were under with regard to the European arrest warrant, and we have seen today the divisions within the Tory party regarding Prüm. While I welcome the change in stance and the party’s willingness now to stand up to its Back Benchers, I wish that there had not been the need for a delay of over a year. The demonstrated benefits of Prüm mean that this delay is likely to have had a negative impact on British policing, so it is important that legislation is now introduced as soon as possible.

Although the business case and the pilot study clearly show that there would be operational and public protection benefits, there is of course a need for balance and safeguards. I have a number of questions relating to these issues, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer them.

It is right and proper that we send information abroad only about people actually convicted in the UK, and that additional requirements be applied prior to the release of information relating to minors. The risk of false positive matches is another serious issue. While it is promising that the Government’s business case found that there was increased convergence in DNA testing standards across member states, we would like a requirement under Prüm that data is collected using a system of quality assurances for crime scene examination. Will the Minister confirm that the standard requirement prior to transferring DNA information will be maintained at 10 loci rather than the minimum of six loci required by Prüm?

I have a number of questions about the proportionality test mentioned in the implementation case. Will the Minister give an example of when he thinks that the test will prevent personal information from being sent abroad due to the offence under investigation being insufficiently serious? Given that the proportionality test is not explicitly included in the Government’s proposed draft legislation, will it be contained in any legislation, and who will be responsible for taking these decisions?

In addition to those concerns about sufficient safeguards being put in place, I have a number of other outstanding issues that I would like the Minister to clarify. The business and implementation case estimates that the cost of Prüm will be £30 million, although it acknowledges that there will be additional downstream costs. How are the savings of £18 million being made from the previous estimate of £31 million? What are the annual costs expected to be for the rest of this Parliament? It is important that ongoing transparency and scrutiny is applied to ensure that the measures are operating effectively. What plans are there to publish details of the number of pieces of information being sent abroad from the UK, as well as the number being denied due to failing the proportionality test?

Will the Minister tell the House about the timeframe for bringing forward the legislation needed to give effect to the decision to rejoin Prüm, and how long it is expected to take for the system to become operational? Given the delay already caused by the initial opt-out from Prüm, preventing any further delays should be a matter of priority for the Government.

In summary, Labour supported the Prüm decision when in government and opposed the initial opt-out from these measures during the previous Parliament. We are therefore happy to support this motion authorising the Government to rejoin.